JUDGMENT

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C.') for setting aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2022 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (NI Act) Digital Court, Central District, Delhi (`Trial Court') in the Complaint Case No. 1440/2021, filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act') titled as `Mehtab Singh vs. Reeta Kalonia', whereby the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. In the present case, the complainant/respondent no. 2 had filed a case under Section 138 N.I Act before the learned Trial Court alleging that the petitioner had approached the complainant in the month of January, 2020 being wife of neighbour of the complainant for a friendly loan of Rs. 15 lakhs to promote her boutique business. At the time of requesting for a friendly loan, the husband of the petitioner had categorically assured the complainant that the petitioner would return the money within a short period of time. The complainant looking into the friendly relationship with husband of the petitioner had given an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs in the month of January, 2021 in cash to the petitioner. It is alleged that to discharge liability, the petitioner had issued cheque bearing no. 031998 dated 20.11.2020 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- drawn on State Bank of India, Narela Branch, Delhi to the complainant/respondent no. 2 with assurance that the same would be encashed. However, upon presentation, the same was returned with remarks "Funds Insufficient" on 05.01.2021. Thereafter, a legal notice of demand was sent to the present petitioner by respondent no. 2 on 12.01.2021, however, the petitioner failed to make payment of the cheque amount. Accordingly, the present case under Section 138 of NI Act was filed by respondent no. 2.

3. After summoning, the learned Trial Court framed notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and upon moving an application under Section 145(2) NI Act, the case was listed for cross-examination of the respondent no. 2 before the learned Trial Court. The petitioner herein had partly examined the respondent no. 2 on 19.04.2022 and the remaining evidence was deferred for the next date of hearing. Upon failure on part of petitioner to further cross-examine respondent no. 2 on several dates, the learned Trial Court vide impugned dated 21.07.2022 had closed the right of the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent no. 2. Learned Trial Court had thereafter dismissed the application moved under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling the complainant/respondent no. 2 for his cross-examination.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Trial Court did not appreciate that right of cross-examination by an accused in a criminal case to discredit the witnesses and to test veracity of the statement is the most vital part of a criminal trial, and that the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. was arbitrarily dismissed by the learned Trial Court. It was further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Trial Court on one of the occasions had fixed time at 11:30 AM for taking up the matter as it is a virtual court, and the counsel for the petitioner was present at 11:30 AM, however, complainant and his counsel were not present and the matter was taken up only at 11:45 AM. However, learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared after five minutes, however, by that time, the time allotted by the learned Trial Court for leading evidence was over. It is submitted that the revision petition against the impugned order was withdrawn by the petitioner as it was not maintainable before the learned ASJ. It is now argued that the petitioner has partly cross-examined the respondent no. 2 on 19.04.2022, even in the absence of the petitioner but the learned Trial Court has closed the right to further cross-examine the witness without appreciating the law on the point